Insanely gorgeous...

^ That's after GM restyled/upgraded it.

I think the original look is a far better fit. I prefer the domed hood & such :

Cadillac built 5 of 'em, 1 is known to be destroyed. This is one of my all-time favorite car designs, ever.

But look how loooow and absolutely sanitary the later version is. I think the lower hood and the crisp flanks do it justice.

The original front end looks pretty much the same as a regular production 1954 Cadillac as do the rear fins. I like the modified version except for the quad headlights which make me think of a Checker for some reason...

But look how loooow and absolutely sanitary the later version is. I think the lower hood and the crisp flanks do it justice.

I'm not saying it's not very appealing, but the result to my eye is '50s cues on a '60s-70s body; anachronistic. The rear flank scoops are a bit unfinished, too.

The original design looks a lot more 'powerful' IMO. Alloy Sabre Spoke rims are fantstic, too.

Front end design of the 'LeMans 2.0' indeed predicted the OEM '54s, tho the scale here is markedly smaller.

I just wish GM Styling had built it from scratch rather than cutting into one of the original LeMans'.

Interesting comparing the appearance to the '54 Eldorado...appears sectioned and shorter, with a different windshield shape..

^ It was a clean-sheet build, fiberglas body, not modified from a production car. It's a 2-seater, much smaller than a production Caddy.

I don't know how tall these people are, but the cowl looks right about hip-high :

'53 & '59 versions side-by-side :

Still prefer the '53. I love the windshield on the '53; how it wraps down around the cowl.

Bottom line: I cannot get past my familiarity of what/when this car is stylistically, and the '59 restyle/proportions are 'wrong' for the '54-esque nose. :shrug: Still a beautiful car... just doesn't eclipse the original for me.

Odd that it would have been restyled in '59, the restyle doesn't fit with regular Cadillac '59 styling at all... too bad they didn't build the original in volume, a 2 seat Cadillac roadster would have been quite a halo car...I can only imagine what a coupe version could have looked like...

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

One online article claims the '53 LeMans was 51" tall at the windshield & 196" overall length.

A production '55 convertible was 223" overall & a roofed car was in the neighborhood of 62" tall (convert would lose about 2-3").

The LeMans' series (5 built) were sold to private, 'in' owners, not sure why the program didn't continue beyond those, tho.

GM Corporate had a fit OK'ing the 2-seat Corvette, and with the low sales '53-55, it's little surprise none of the other 2-seaters didn't get green-lit (Buick, Olds, Pontiac, Cadillac, LaSalle).

Hardtop coupe would probably have been in the same vein as the Wildcat I hardtop :

or as you imply; a stunner.

Love those cars!

Like em' all...

Nice sweepspear and VENTIPORTS ON TOP of the fenders... who says they don't "belong" there on new Buicks? There is a precedent!

Seems odd that the car I posted would have been built that late in the decade... I would have guessed '54, or '56 at the latest, as they would have made a big deal about showing off quad headlamps on a concept car at that point, which I believe went into production on a few late '57s, with a boom in '58 after legalization.

Anyway, what I love about the car in my photo is that it is still totally recognizable as a Cadillac, yet it is as clean and simple as possible without losing its brand character. Lack of gingerbread adds to a design of integrity.

Very True, distinct design language that is clean and Identifiable. All GM models should strive for that individual goal.

Seems odd that the car I posted would have been built that late in the decade... I would have guessed '54, or '56 at the latest, as they would have made a big deal about showing off quad headlamps on a concept car at that point, which I believe went into production on a few late '57s, with a boom in '58 after legalization. Anyway, what I love about the car in my photo is that it is still totally recognizable as a Cadillac, yet it is as clean and simple as possible without losing its brand character. Lack of gingerbread adds to a design of integrity.

Well, in that it was a modified '53, as opposed to a fresh build, it's modification for '59 seems logical. Whether 'Mitchell's Reign' (he assumed the job in the beginning of '59) had any part in 'upgrading' one of Earl's concepts, I don't know offhand.

I don't believe the '59 version was shown publicly, but I might be wrong on that- I'd have to check. Cadillac had the Cyclone on the circuit for '59. The '59 LeM was more of an update than a fresh idea. Cadillac first had quad lamps on the '57 Brougham.

You are quite right on the styling analysis, IMO, it is a swanky lil sports roadster. It 'got it's suit pressed', so to speak.

I still love those 'hump' fins & the exhaust ports on the '53 better.

Funny how the taller cars are loved today for being retro and the low wide cars were loved then for being so futuristic.

I like them both for what each has to offer. Both are intersting to look at the lines and study the flow. In fact it is fun to compare the changes of each.

Well, park both of them in my garage and I'll let them fight it out amongst themselves.